gulf of mexico offshore ecosystem services: stakeholder ... carlota.pdf · gulf of mexico offshore...
TRANSCRIPT
Gulf of Mexico offshore ecosystem services: stakeholder valuation workshops
David Yoskowitz1, Sandra Werner2, Gary Isaksen2, Cristina Carollo1, Carlota Santos1, and Travis Washburn1 1Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 2 ExxonMobil, Houston, TX
The stakeholder valuation workshops were a first step
toward testing the RESVI approach for marine
environments. Future studies are recommended to fully
develop the viability of this methodology. The results
obtained during the workshops may be useful in future
discussions of scientific and socio-economic indicators to
monitor and maintain ecosystem services health in
alignment with stakeholder needs.
Future steps
Scan QR Code to see the
Workshops Report
Preserving the ability of the environment
to provide valued ecosystem services is
one of the objectives of environmental
management. The integration of
ecosystem services into the management
of deep-water marine systems is of
interest; however, one of the limitations
has been the absence of organized forums
where stakeholders can communicate their
values and expectations.
To start the dialogue with stakeholders, the
Harte Research Institute with the help of
ExxonMobil held two stakeholder
workshops: one on September 29th, 2013
in Houston, Texas and one on November
21st, 2013 in Tampa, Florida.
Introduction
Workshops participants
Stakeholders that participated in the workshops
included representatives from commercial and
recreational fishing, oil and gas, diving, aquaculture,
wind energy, pipeline industry, Federal agencies, and
non-government organizations.
Workshops objectives
• Engage participants in a discussion on ecosystem
services provided by the deep-water Gulf.
• Identify offshore ecosystem services that are
occurring or anticipated to occur in the deepwater
Gulf.
• Quantify, in non-monetary terms, the relative
importance of the identified offshore ecosystem
services (Relative Valuation of Multiple Ecosystem
Services Index/RESVI approach) [1].
Stakeholder valuation workshops
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Last accessed (08/2011) at: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html
[1] Jordan, S. J., S.E. Hayes, D. Yoskowitz, L.M Smith, J.K Summers, M. Russell, and W.H. Benson (2010) Accounting for Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability: Linking Ecosystem Services to Human Well-Being. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(5), 1530–1536. doi:10.1021/es902597u
References
We thank all stakeholders who participated in the workshops for their time and valuable input.
Acknowledgements
1. Stakeholders took a holistic approach, i.e., recognized
the value of ranking multiple ecosystem services.
2. Both workshops yielded similar results, with food, raw
materials, and recreation being among the top ranked
ecosystem services.
3. Participants highlighted the difference between direct
(provisioning and cultural) and indirect (regulating and
supporting) services, and;
4. Workshop participants decided that only those services
should be ranked which are directly used, consumed or
enjoyed by stakeholders (i.e., direct services).
5. Stakeholders expressed that the role of the indirect
services should be considered when designing
monitoring and mitigation measures to support the
sustainability of the direct services.
Conclusions
Figure 4: Offshore ecosystem services relative
valuation: combined results.
Workshops results
Figure 3: Top five most valued offshore ecosystem services
* Derivative resources include genetic and medicinal resources
Stakeholders were asked to rank ecosystem services using the RESVI approach [1]. This entailed allocating an hypothetical $1 to the services stakeholders valued the most. Participants could either assign their $1 to one service or divide it among as many services as desired. Below are the results from the valuation exercises.
Relative Valuation Approach
Symbols used on the left are courtesy of the Integration and Application Network. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Figure 1: Offshore ecosystem services provided by different water column zones
Because of the varying depth, the photic zone (0-200 m), pelagic zone (deeper than 200 m), and sea floor (on or near the ocean floor) provide different ecosystem services (Fig. 1). Some services are provided by all three zones (e.g. food, nutrient regulation, science and education, etc...), while others are provided exclusively by one zone (e.g. transportation). These offshore ecosystem services were the focus of the stakeholder valuation workshops.
Offshore Ecosystem Services
1 Including hydrocarbons
3 For comparison purposes, the service “Aesthetic, Spiritual and
Cultural” is a combination of two services valued in Houston
(“aesthetics” and “spiritual and historic”) and one service valued in
Tampa (“aesthetics and cultural”).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Food Raw Materials Recreation Science and
Education
Transportation
Houston
Tampa
1
Note: Percentages reflect the percentage of hypothetical funds
assigned to an ecosystem service for each workshop. Participants in
Houston ranked 11 ecosystem services compared to 7 in Tampa.
26%
20%
12% 10%
9%
9%
8% 6%
Food
Raw Materials
Recreation
Science and Education
Transportation
Other
Derivative Resources
Aesthetics, Spiritual andCultural
1
*
2
2 “Other” includes waste regulation, nutrient regulation, and
existence, which were only ranked in Houston and represent 4%,
3%, and 2% of all votes, respectively.
3
The views and opinions expressed in this poster reflect those of the participant groups in these workshops and do not necessarily represent those of the individual companies participating.
Disclaimer
Figure 2: Northwestern Gulf of Mexico